Triable only on indictment Maximum: Life imprisonment Offence range: 3 – 40 years’ custody
This is a Schedule 19 offence for the purposes of sections 274 and 285 (required life sentence for offence carrying life sentence) of the Sentencing Code.
For offences committed on or after 3 December 2012, this is an offence listed in Part 1 of Schedule 15 for the purposes of sections 273 and 283 (life sentence for second listed offence) of the Sentencing Code.
This is a specified offence for the purposes of sections 266 and 279 (extended sentence for certain violent, sexual or terrorism offences) of the Sentencing Code.
Where the offence has a terrorist connection this is an offence listed in Schedule 13 for the purposes of sections 265 and 278 (required special sentence for certain offenders of particular concern) of the Sentencing Code.
Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.
In accordance with section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Sentencing Council issues this definitive guideline. It applies to all offenders aged 18 and older, who are sentenced on or after the effective date of this guideline, regardless of the date of the offence.*
must, in sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, and
must, in exercising any other function relating to the sentencing of offenders, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the exercise of the function,
unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.”
This guideline applies only to offenders aged 18 and older. General principles to be considered in the sentencing of children and young people are in the Sentencing Council definitive guideline, Overarching Principles – Sentencing Children and Young People.
*The maximum sentence that applies to an offence is the maximum that applied at the date of the offence.
Step 1 – Determining the offence category
Culpability
Where there are factors present from more than one category of culpability, the court should weigh those factors in order to decide which category most resembles the offender’s case.
A – Very high culpability
Abduction of the victim with intent to murder
Attempted murder of a child
Offence motivated by or involves sexual or sadistic conduct
Offence involves the use of a firearm or explosive or fire
Offence committed for financial gain
Attempted murder of a police officer or prison officer in the course of their duty
Offence committed for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause
Offence intended to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice
Offence motivated by racial or religious hostility or hostility related to victim’s sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity
B – High culpability
Offender took a knife or other weapon to the scene intending to commit any offence or have it available to use as a weapon, and used that knife or other weapon in committing the offence.
Planning or premeditation of murder
C – Medium culpability
Use of weapon not in category A or B
Lack of premeditation/spontaneous attempt to kill
D – Lesser culpability
Excessive self defence
Offender acted in response to prolonged or extreme violence or abuse by victim
Offender’s responsibility substantially reduced by mental disorder or learning disability
Genuine belief by the offender that the offence was an act of mercy
Harm
Category 1
Injury results in physical or psychological harm resulting in lifelong dependency on third party care or medical treatment
Offence results in a permanent, irreversible injury or psychological condition which has a substantial and long term effect on the victim’s ability to carry out their normal day to day activities or on their ability to work
Category 2
Serious physical or psychological harm not in category 1
Category 3
All other cases
Step 2 – Starting point and category range
Having determined the category at step one, the court should use the corresponding starting point to reach a sentence within the category range in the table below. The starting point applies to all offenders irrespective of plea or previous convictions.
An adjustment from the starting point, upwards or downwards, may be necessary to reflect particular features of culpability and/or harm (for example, the presence of multiple factors within one category, the presence of factors from more than one category (where not already taken into account at step 1), or where a case falls close to a borderline between categories).
Sentencers should be aware that there is evidence of a disparity in sentence outcomes for this offence which indicates that for Black and Asian offenders custodial sentence lengths have on average been longer than for White offenders. There may be many reasons for these differences, but in order to apply the guidelines fairly sentencers may find useful information and guidance at Chapter 8 of the Equal Treatment Bench Book.
For offences involving an extreme nature of one or more very high or high culpability factors a sentence higher than the offence range or an extended or life sentence may be appropriate. Extended and life sentences are dealt with at Step 5 of the guideline.
Culpability
Harm
A
B
C
D
Harm 1
Starting point 35 years’ custody
Starting point 30 years’ custody
Starting point 25 years’ custody
Starting point 14 years’ custody
Category range 30 – 40 years’ custody
Category range 25 – 35 years’ custody
Category range 20 – 30 years’ custody
Category range 10 – 20 years’ custody
Harm 2
Starting point 30 years’ custody
Starting point 25 years’ custody
Starting point 20 years’ custody
Starting point 8 years’ custody
Category range 25 – 35 years’ custody
Category range 20 – 30 years’ custody
Category range 15 – 25 years’ custody
Category range 5 – 12 years’ custody
Harm 3
Starting point 25 years’ custody
Starting point 20 years’ custody
Starting point 10 years’ custody
Starting point 5 years’ custody
Category range 20 – 30 years’ custody
Category range 15 – 25 years’ custody
Category range 7 – 15 years’ custody
Category range 3 – 6 years’ custody
Note: The table is for a single offence against a single victim. Where another offence or offences arise out of the same incident or facts, concurrent sentences reflecting the overall criminality of offending will ordinarily be appropriate: please refer to the Totality guideline and step 7 of this guideline.
The Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline outlines the general approach to sentencing and provides guidance on how sentencers should address specific issues that may arise when they consider the most appropriate sentence.
A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence (or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it) was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified (section 230(2) of the Sentencing Code).
Even where the seriousness of the offence indicates that the threshold for a custodial order has been passed, a custodial sentence should not be imposed if in all the circumstances of the case it is appropriate to impose a community order, for example, if a community order achieves the purposes of sentencing.
Custody should not be imposed on an offender who is pregnant or within the postnatal period (within 12 months after giving birth) where the impact on the offender or dependants, including unborn children, would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the purposes of sentencing.
See further information on previous convictions in section 2 of the Imposition guideline.
Pre-sentence reports (PSR)
When considering a community or custodial sentence, the court must request and consider a pre-sentence report (PSR) before forming an opinion of the sentence, unless it considers that it is unnecessary (section 30 of the Sentencing Code). A pre-sentence report may also be requested by a defence legal representative as part of the before-plea protocol.
A pre-sentence report can be pivotal in helping the court decide whether to impose a custodial or community order and, where relevant, what particular requirements or combination of requirements are most suitable for an individual offender on either a community order or a suspended custodial sentence.
PSRs are necessary in all cases that would benefit from an assessment of one or more of the following: the offender’s dangerousness and risk of harm, the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the offender’s personal circumstances and any factors that may be helpful to the court in considering the offender’s suitability for different sentences or requirements.
A pre-sentence report may be unnecessary if the court considers that it has enough information about the offence and the offender.
See more information on pre-sentence reports at section 3 of the Imposition guideline.
Magistrates: Consult your legal adviser before deciding to sentence to a community order or custodial sentence without a pre-sentence report.
Section 4 of the Imposition guideline contains important information on the suitability and effectiveness of a sentence.
Custodial sentences
If the custodial threshold has been passed the court should ask the following three questions in the following order:
Is it unavoidable that a custodial sentence be imposed?
A custodial sentence (whether immediate or suspended) must not be imposed unless the offence (or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it) was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified (s.230(2) Sentencing Act 2020).
Passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence (whether immediate or suspended) is inevitable. Custody should not be imposed where the purposes of sentencing could be achieved by a community order or where circumstances exist which may make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the purposes of sentencing (for example, where there would be an impact on dependants, including on unborn children where the offender is pregnant.)
Community orders are often punitive and last longer than shorter custodial sentences. Community orders can restrict an offender’s day to day liberties, especially when imposed on an offender who may find regular attendance at a specific place or time challenging. Breach can result in custody.
If the purposes of sentencing can be achieved by a community order, or any personal mitigation means that a community order may be a more suitable sentence, see the Community orders dropdown above.
What is the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence?
If the court is considering an immediate custodial sentence of up to 12 months, it should take into account that research suggests that custodial sentences of up to 12 months are less effective than other disposals at reducing reoffending and can lead to negative outcomes. Any custodial sentence may disrupt factors which can discourage further offending, such as employment, education or accommodation, and may affect support networks by interfering with relationships with friends and family.
While courts are encouraged to consider a community order in lieu of a custodial sentence where appropriate, there will be cases where a short custodial sentence is unavoidable.
In considering the shortest term, the court must NOT consider any licence or post sentence supervision requirements or any other administrative or statutory consequences of the potential sentence imposed.
Can the sentence be suspended?
Cases where the offender was convicted before 22 March 2026 If the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence is 2 years or less, the court should consider whether it is appropriate to suspend that sentence so that the offender serves their sentence in the community under the supervision of the Probation Service.
Cases where the offender was convicted on or after 22 March 2026 If the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offending is 12 months or less, the court must suspend the sentence under the statutory presumption of suspension, unless any of the following apply:
The offender is in custody (whether serving a sentence, on remand for another offence, or detained under a hospital order)
The offender is being resentenced for breaching a community or suspended sentence order
The offence was committed while the offender was subject to a community or suspended sentence order
Committing the offence, or an associated offence, was a breach of a court order or was closely connected with a breach of a court order (whether or not that breach was a criminal offence)
There is significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual
Exceptional circumstances relate to the offence or the offender which justify not suspending the sentence
If the sentence is not to be suspended applying the presumption OR if the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offending is more than 12 months and no more than 3 years, the court should consider whether it is appropriate to suspend that sentence so that the offender serves their sentence in the community under the supervision of the Probation Service.
The court should weigh the relevant factors below to consider whether it is possible to suspend the sentence:
Factors indicating that it may be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence
Factors indicating that it may not be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence
Realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community
Offender does not present high risk of reoffending or harm
Strong personal mitigation
Immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact upon others, including any dependent children or where the offender is pregnant or postnatal (has given birth in the previous 12 months)
Offender presents a risk to any person
The seriousness of the offence means that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody
History of poor compliance with court orders AND unlikely to comply in the future
Suspending a sentence
If the offender reoffends during the operational period or fails to comply with any requirements during the supervision period of the suspended sentence order, the custodial term will be activated and the offender will be required to serve some or all of the sentence in custody, unless it is unjust to do so, as set out in the Breach of suspended sentence orders guideline).
A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence. A suspended sentence MUST NOT be imposed as a more severe form of community order. Sentencers should be clear that they would impose an immediate custodial sentence if the power to suspend were not available. If not, a non-custodial sentence, such as a community order, should be imposed.
In weighing any of the following non-exhaustive factors indicating whether to suspend a custodial sentence, the court will usually benefit from Probation’s assessment of any relevant circumstances (such as dependants) and whether the offender can be safely managed in the community (including safeguarding of the victim/s and/or public).
A custodial sentence that is suspended should be for the same term that would have applied if the sentence was to be served immediately. See more information on the operational and supervision periods in section 9 of the Imposition guideline.
Requirements on a suspended sentence order
When the court imposes a suspended sentence order, it may impose one or more requirements on the order for the offender to undertake in the community (section 286(2) of the Sentencing Code).
A suspended sentence order is a custodial sentence; as such, the imposition of a suspended sentence order is itself a punishment, with or without requirements. Any requirements that are imposed as part of a suspended sentence order are, therefore, more likely to be predominantly rehabilitative in purpose. The court should moderate the intensity, volume or length of any requirement imposed for the purpose of additional punishment so it is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending.
The requirements that may be imposed on a suspended sentence order are identical to those for community orders. The court must follow the guidance in section 7 of the Imposition guideline, including ensuring that any requirements imposed are the most suitable for the offender, realistic to fulfil, and where multiple requirements are imposed, they are compatible with each other and not excessive.
To ensure that the requirements of the suspended sentence are commensurate with offence seriousness, care must be taken to ensure requirements imposed are not excessive. The court wishing to impose onerous or intensive requirements should reconsider whether a community sentence might be more appropriate.
The tables below contain a non-exhaustive list of additional factual elements providing the context of the offence and factors relating to the offender. Identify whether any combination of these, or other relevant factors, should result in a further upward or downward adjustment. In some cases, having considered these factors, it may be appropriate to move outside the identified category range.
Factors increasing seriousness
Statutory aggravating factors:
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Guidance on the use of previous convictions
The following guidance should be considered when seeking to determine the degree to which previous convictions should aggravate sentence:
(1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence (“the current offence”) committed by an offender who has one or more relevant previous convictions.
(2) The court must treat as an aggravating factor each relevant previous conviction that it considers can reasonably be so treated, having regard in particular to— (a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence, and (b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction.
(3) Where the court treats a relevant previous conviction as an aggravating factor under subsection (2) it must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
Previous convictions are considered at step two in the Council’s offence-specific guidelines.
The primary significance of previous convictions (including convictions in other jurisdictions) is the extent to which they indicate trends in offending behaviour and possibly the offender’s response to earlier sentences.
Previous convictions are normally ofrelevance to the current offence when they are of a similar type.
Previous convictions of a type different from the current offence may be of relevance where they are an indication of persistent offending or escalation and/or a failure to comply with previous court orders.
Numerous and frequent previous convictions might indicate an underlying problem (for example, an addiction) that could be addressed more effectively in the community and will not necessarily indicate that a custodial sentence is necessary.
If the offender received a non-custodial disposal for the previous offence, a court should not necessarily move to a custodial sentence for the fresh offence.
In cases involving significant persistent offending, the community and custody thresholds may be crossed even though the current offence normally warrants a lesser sentence. If a custodial sentence is imposed it should be proportionate and kept to the necessary minimum.
The aggravating effect of relevant previous convictions reduces with the passage of time; older convictions are of less relevance to the offender’s culpability for the current offence and less likely to be predictive of future offending.
Where the previous offence is particularly old it will normally have little relevance for the current sentencing exercise.
The court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it. Where there has been a significant gap between previous and current convictions or a reduction in the frequency of offending this may indicate that the offender has made attempts to desist from offending in which case the aggravating effect of the previous offending will diminish.
Where the current offence is significantly less serious than the previous conviction (suggesting a decline in the gravity of offending), the previous conviction may carry less weight.
When considering the totality of previous offending a court should take a rounded view of the previous crimes and not simply aggregate the individual offences.
Where information is available on the context of previous offending this may assist the court in assessing the relevance of that prior offending to the current offence
having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
In considering the seriousness of any offence committed while the offender was on bail, the court must - (a) treat the fact that it was committed in those circumstances as an aggravating factor and (b) state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
See below for the statutory provisions.
Note the requirement for thecourt to state that the offence has been aggravated by the relevant hostility.
Where the element of hostility is core to the offending, the aggravation will be higher than where it plays a lesser role.
Hostility (1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence which is aggravated by—
(a) racial hostility,
(b) religious hostility,
(c) hostility related to disability,
(d) hostility related to sexual orientation, or
(e) hostility related to transgender identity.
This is subject to subsection (3). (2) The court—
(a) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by hostility of any of those types as an aggravating factor, and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
(3) So far as it relates to racial and religious hostility, this section does not apply in relation to an offence under sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (racially or religiously aggravated offences). (4) For the purposes of this section, an offence is aggravated by hostility of one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (1) if—
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—
(i) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group,
(ii) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group,
(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim,
(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or (as the case may be)
(v) the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or
(b) the offence was motivated (wholly or partly) by—
(i) hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group,
(ii) hostility towards members of a religious group based on their membership of that group,
(iii) hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability,
(iv) hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or (as the case may be)
(v) hostility towards persons who are transgender.
(5) For the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4), it is immaterial whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph. (6) In this section—
(a) references to a racial group are to a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins;
(b) references to a religious group are to a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief;
(c) “membership” in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;
(d) “disability” means any physical or mental impairment;
(e) references to being transgender include references to being transsexual, or undergoing, proposing to undergo or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment;
(f) “presumed” means presumed by the offender.
Other aggravating factors:
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
This reflects:
the fact that people in public facing roles are more exposed to the possibility of harm and consequently more vulnerable and/or
the fact that someone is working in the public interest merits the additional protection of the courts.
This applies whether the victim is a public or private employee or acting in a voluntary capacity.
Care should be taken to avoid double counting where the statutory aggravating factor relating to emergency workers or to those providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing services to the public applies.
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Offences committed in custody are more serious because they undermine the fundamental need for control and order which is necessary for the running of prisons and maintaining safety.
Generally the sentence for the new offence will be consecutive to the sentence being served as it will have arisen out of an unrelated incident. The court must have regard to the totality of the offender’s criminality when passing the second sentence, to ensure that the total sentence to be served is just and proportionate. Refer to the Totality guideline for detailed guidance.
Care should be taken to avoid double counting matters taken into account when considering previous convictions.
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
History of violence or abuse towards victim by offender (where not taken into account at step one)
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
A close examination of the facts is necessary and a clear justification should be given if abuse of trust is to be found.
In order for an abuse of trust to make an offence more serious the relationship between the offender and victim(s) must be one that would give rise to the offender having a significant level of responsibility towards the victim(s) on which the victim(s) would be entitled to rely.
Abuse of trust may occur in many factual situations. Examples may include relationships such as teacher and pupil, parent and child, employer and employee, professional adviser and client, or carer (whether paid or unpaid) and dependant. It may also include ad hoc situations such as a late-night taxi driver and a lone passenger. These examples are not exhaustive and do not necessarily indicate that abuse of trust is present.
Additionally an offence may be made more serious where an offender has abused their position to facilitate and/or conceal offending.
Where an offender has been given an inappropriate level of responsibility, abuse of trust is unlikely to apply.
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Where an offender deliberately causes additional harm to a victim over and above that which is an essential element of the offence - this will increase seriousness. Examples may include, but are not limited to, posts of images on social media designed to cause additional distress to the victim.
Where any such actions are the subject of separate charges, this should be taken into account when assessing totality.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Where there is risk of harm to other(s) not taken in account at step one and not subject to a separate charge, this makes the offence more serious.
Dealing with a risk of harm involves consideration of both the likelihood of harm occurring and the extent of it if it does.
Where any such risk of harm is the subject of separate charges, this should be taken into account when assessing totality.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.
Use of duress or threats against another person to facilitate the commission of the offence
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
The more sophisticated, extensive or persistent the actions after the event, the more likely it is to increase the seriousness of the offence.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and lack of maturity when considering the significance of such conduct.
Where any such actions are the subject of separate charges, this should be taken into account when assessing totality.
Steps taken to prevent the victim from seeking or receiving medical assistance
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
The fact that an offender is voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence will tend to increase the seriousness of the offence provided that the intoxication has contributed to the offending.
This applies regardless of whether the offender is under the influence of legal or illegal substance(s).
In the case of a person addicted to drugs or alcohol the intoxication may be considered not to be voluntary, but the court should have regard to the extent to which the offender has sought help or engaged with any assistance which has been offered or made available in dealing with the addiction.
An offender who has voluntarily consumed drugs and/or alcohol must accept the consequences of the behaviour that results, even if it is out of character.
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
An offender who is subject to licence or post sentence supervision is under a particular obligation to desist from further offending.
The extent to which the offender has complied with the conditions of a licence or order (including the time that has elapsed since its commencement) will be a relevant consideration.
Where the offender is dealt with separately for a breach of a licence or order regard should be had to totality.
Care should be taken to avoid double counting matters taken into account when considering previous convictions.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
Commission of an offence while subject to a relevant court order makes the offence more serious.
The extent to which the offender has complied with the conditions of an order (including the time that has elapsed since its commencement) will be a relevant consideration.
Where the offender is dealt with separately for a breach of an order regard should be had to totality
Care should be taken to avoid double counting matters taken into account when considering previous convictions.
When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and/or lack of maturity when considering the significance of this factor.
Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
First time offenders usually represent a lower risk of reoffending. Reoffending rates for first offenders are significantly lower than rates for repeat offenders. In addition, first offenders are normally regarded as less blameworthy than offenders who have committed the same crime several times already. For these reasons first offenders receive a mitigated sentence.
Where there are previous offences but these are old and /or are for offending of a different nature, the sentence will normally be reduced to reflect that the new offence is not part of a pattern of offending and there is therefore a lower likelihood of reoffending.
When assessing whether a previous conviction is ‘recent’ the court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it.
Previous convictions are likely to be ‘relevant’ when they share characteristics with the current offence (examples of such characteristics include, but are not limited to: dishonesty, violence, abuse of position or trust, use or possession of weapons, disobedience of court orders). In general the more serious the previous offending the longer it will retain relevance.
Significant degree of provocation (including due to prolonged and/or excessive stress linked to circumstances of offence)
History of significant violence or abuse towards the offender by the victim (where not taken into account at step one)
Attempt by offender to give assistance/summon help when the attempted murder failed
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
The court will need to be satisfied that the offender is genuinely remorseful for the offending behaviour in order to reduce the sentence (separate from any guilty plea reduction).
Lack of remorse should never be treated as an aggravating factor.
Remorse can present itself in many different ways. A simple assertion of the fact may be insufficient.
The court should be aware that the offender’s demeanour in court or the way they articulate their feelings of remorse may be affected by, for example:
nervousness
a lack of understanding of the system
mental disorder
learning disabilities
communication difficulties (including where English is not their first language)
a belief that they have been or will be discriminated against
peer pressure to behave in a certain way because of others present
age and/or a lack of maturity etc.
Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
Evidence that an offender has demonstrated a positive side to their character may reduce the sentence.
This factor may apply whether or not the offender has previous convictions.
However:
This factor is less likely to be relevant where the offending is very serious
Where an offender has used their positive character or status to facilitate or conceal the offending it could be treated as an aggravating factor.
Effective from: 01 October 2019 (revised 1 April 2024)
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
Where a person has committed the offence under the age of 18, regard should be had to the overarching guideline for sentencing children and young people. That guideline may also be relevant to offending by young adults.
Age and/or lack of maturity can affect:
the offender’s responsibility for the offence and
the effect of the sentence on the offender.
Either or both of these considerations may justify a reduction in the sentence.
The emotional and developmental age of an offender is of at least equal importance to their chronological age (if not greater).
In particular young adults (typically aged 18-25) are still developing neurologically and consequently may be less able to:
evaluate the consequences of their actions
limit impulsivity
limit risk taking
Young adults are likely to be susceptible to peer pressure and are more likely to take risks or behave impulsively when in company with their peers.
Immaturity can also result from atypical brain development. Environment plays a role in neurological development and factors such as adverse childhood experiences including deprivation and/or abuse may affect development.
An immature offender may find it particularly difficult to cope with custody and therefore may be more susceptible to self-harm in custody.
An immature offender may find it particularly difficult to cope with the requirements of a community order without appropriate support.
There is a greater capacity for change in immature offenders and they may be receptive to opportunities to address their offending behaviour and change their conduct.
Many young people who offend either stop committing crime, or begin a process of stopping, in their late teens and early twenties. Therefore a young adult’s previous convictions may not be indicative of a tendency for further offending.
Where the offender is care experienced or a care leaver the court should enquire as to any effect a sentence may have on the offender’s ability to make use of support from the local authority. (Young adult care leavers are entitled to time limited support. Leaving care services may change at the age of 21 and cease at the age of 25, unless the young adult is in education at that point). See also the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (paragraphs 1.16 and 1.17).
Where an offender has turned 18 between the commission of the offence and conviction the court should take as its starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed on the date at which the offence was committed, but applying the purposes of sentencing adult offenders. See also the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3).
Effective from: 01 October 2020
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.
Where custody is unavoidable consideration of the impact on dependants may be relevant to the length of the sentence imposed and whether the sentence can be suspended.
For more serious offences where a substantial period of custody is appropriate, this factor will carry less weight.
When imposing a community sentence on an offender with primary caring responsibilities the effect on dependants must be considered in determining suitable requirements.
The court should ensure that it has all relevant information about dependent children before deciding on sentence.
When an immediate custodial sentence is necessary, the court must consider whether proper arrangements have been made for the care of any dependent children and if necessary consider adjourning sentence for this to be done.
Useful information can be found in the Equal Treatment Bench Book (see in particular Chapter 6 paragraphs 119 to 125)
Effective from: 01 October 2019
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
The court can take account of physical disability or a serious medical condition by way of mitigation as a reason for reducing the length of the sentence, either on the ground of the greater impact which imprisonment will have on the offender, or as a matter of generally expressed mercy in the individual circumstances of the case.
However, such a condition, even when it is difficult to treat in prison, will not automatically entitle the offender to a lesser sentence than would otherwise be appropriate.
There will always be a need to balance issues personal to an offender against the gravity of the offending (including the harm done to victims), and the public interest in imposing appropriate punishment for serious offending.
A terminal prognosis is not in itself a reason to reduce the sentence even further. The court must impose a sentence that properly meets the aims of sentencing even if it will carry the clear prospect that the offender will die in custody. The prospect of death in the near future will be a matter considered by the prison authorities and the Secretary of State under the early release on compassionate grounds procedure (ERCG).
But, an offender’s knowledge that he will likely face the prospect of death in prison, subject only to the ERCG provisions, is a factor that can be considered by the sentencing judge when determining the sentence that it would be just to impose.
Effective from: 01 April 2024
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
When considering a custodial or community sentence for a pregnant or postnatal offender (someone who has given birth in the previous 12 months) the court should ensure it has all the necessary information before sentencing and adjourn the sentencing if necessary.
When sentencing a pregnant or postnatal woman, relevant considerations may include:
the medical needs of the offender including her mental health needs
any effect of the sentence on the physical and mental health of the offender
any effect of the sentence on the child
The impact of custody on an offender who is pregnant or postnatal can be harmful for both the offender and the child including by separation, especially in the first two years of life.
Access to a place in a prison Mother & Baby Unit is not automatic and when available, the court may wish to enquire for how long the place will be available.
Women in custody are likely to have complex health needs which may increase the risks associated with pregnancy for both the offender and the child. The NHS classifies all pregnancies in prison as high risk.
There may be difficulties accessing medical assistance or specialist maternity services in custody.
For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.
Where immediate custody is unavoidable, all of the factors above may be relevant to the length of the sentence.
The court should address the issues above when giving reasons for the sentence.
Effective from: 01 April 2024
Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
The court should consider whether there are factors in the offender’s background or current personal circumstances which may be relevant to sentencing. Such factors may be relevant to:
the offender’s responsibility for the offence and/or
the effect of the sentence on the offender.
Courts should consider that different groups within the criminal justice system have faced multiple disadvantages which may have a bearing on their offending. Such disadvantages include but are not limited to:
experience of discrimination
negative experiences of authority
early experience of loss, neglect or abuse
early experience of offending by family members
being care experienced or a care leaver
negative influences from peers
difficulties relating to the misuse of drugs and/or alcohol (but note: being voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence is an aggravating factor)
Step 3 – Consider any other factors which indicate a reduction, such as assistance to the prosecution
The court should take into account section 74 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentence for assistance to prosecution) and any other rule of law by virtue of which an offender may receive a discounted sentence in consequence of assistance given (or offered) to the prosecutor or investigator.
Case law has established that there are no inflexible rules as to the method by which any reduction should be assessed nor the amount of the reduction. It will be a fact specific decision in each case. The rationale for making a reduction is the same whether the statutory procedure or the common law “text” procedure has been engaged. In principle, there is no reason to distinguish between the two procedures in terms of the extent of the reduction which is made. See also the relevant Criminal Procedure Rules: CPR 28.11 (statutory procedure) CPR 28.12 (text procedure).
The following sequence of matters for a sentencing court to consider reflects case law:
The court should assess the seriousness of the offences being sentenced following any relevant sentencing guidelines.
The court should then consider the quality and quantity of the material provided by the offender in the investigation and subsequent prosecution of crime. The court should take into account the period of time over which the information was provided and the seriousness of the offending to which it relates. Particular value should be attached to those cases where the offender provides evidence in the form of a witness statement or is prepared to give evidence at any subsequent trial, especially where the information either produces convictions for the most serious offences, or prevents them, or which leads to disruption of major criminal networks. In cases where it is too early to say what impact the information will have, the Court should take into account the potential value of the information provided.
This consideration should be made in the context of the nature and extent of the personal risks to, and potential consequences faced by, the offender and members of the offender’s family.
A guilty plea is not an essential prerequisite of the making of a reduction for information and assistance provided, but contesting guilt may be one of the factors relevant to the extent of the reduction made for that assistance. The extent to which an offender has been prepared to admit the full extent of their criminality is relevant to the level of the reduction.
Any reduction for a guilty plea is separate from and additional to the appropriate reduction for assistance provided by the offender. The reduction for the assistance provided by the offender should be assessed first to arrive at a notional sentence and any guilty plea reduction applied to that notional sentence.
A mathematical approach to determining the level of reduction for assistance to the authorities is liable to produce an inappropriate answer – the totality principle is fundamental.
Where the statutory procedure applies, the court should take into account that this requires offenders to reveal the whole of their previous criminal activities which will often entail pleading guilty to offences which the offender would never otherwise have faced.
An informer can generally only expect to receive credit once for past information or assistance, and for that reason the court should be notified whether particular information and assistance has been taken into account in imposing a previous sentence or when making an application to the Parole Board.
The court should enquire whether an offender has received payment for assistance provided and if so, how much. Financial reward and a reduction in sentence are complementary means of incentivising the disclosure of the criminal activities of others and therefore a financial reward, unless exceptionally generous, should play only a small, if any, part in the sentencer’s decision.
The totality principle is critical in the context of an offender who is already serving a sentence, and who enters into an agreement to provide information which discloses previous criminal activities and comes before the court to be sentenced for the new crimes, as well as for a review of the original sentence (under section 388 of the Sentencing Code).
Where an offender has committed serious crimes, neither the statutory nor common law process provide immunity from punishment, and, subject to appropriate reductions, an appropriate sentence should be passed. By providing assistance to the authorities the offender is entitled to a reduction from the sentence which would otherwise be appropriate to reflect the assistance provided to the administration of justice, and to encourage others to do the same.
It is only in the most exceptional case that the appropriate level of reduction would exceed three quarters of the total sentence which would otherwise be passed. The normal level for the provision of valuable information will be a reduction of somewhere between one half and two thirds of that sentence.
In cases where the information provided was of limited value, the reduction may be less than one half and where the information given is unreliable, vague, lacking in practical utility or already known to the authorities, any reduction made will be minimal.
The risk to an offender who provides information, and the importance of the public interest in encouraging criminals to inform on other criminals, will often mean that the court will not be able to make any explicit reference to the provision of information or the reduction of the sentence on that ground. The duty to give reasons for the sentence will be discharged in such cases by the judge stating that the court has considered all the matters of mitigation which have been brought to its attention. See also CPR 28.12(4).
When sentencing offenders to a life sentence under these provisions, the notional determinate sentence should be used as the basis for the setting of a minimum term.
Step 6 – Required special sentence for certain offenders of particular concern
Where the offence has a terrorist connection and satisfies the criteria in section 278 of the Sentencing Code and the court does not impose a sentence of imprisonment for life or an extended sentence, but does impose a period of imprisonment, the term of the sentence must be equal to the aggregate of the appropriate custodial term and a further period of 1 year for which the offender is to be subject to a licence (sections 265 and 278 of the Sentencing Code).
Step 7 – Totality principle
If sentencing an offender for more than one offence, or where the offender is already serving a sentence, consider whether the total sentence is just and proportionate to the offending behaviour. See Totality guideline.
Step 8 – Compensation and ancillary orders
In all cases, the court should consider whether to make compensation and/or other ancillary orders. The court must give reasons if it decides not to order compensation.
1. The court must consider making a compensation order in any case where personal injury, loss or damage has resulted from the offence. It can either be an ancillary order, or, a sentence in its own right (which does not attract a surcharge). The court must give reasons if it decides not to order compensation (Sentencing Code, s.55).
2. There is no statutory limit on the amount of compensation that may be imposed in respect of offences for an offender aged 18 or over. Compensation may also be ordered in respect of offences taken into consideration (Sentencing Code, s.139).
3. If there are multiple victims who are to receive compensation, a separate compensation order must be made in relation to each offence. Where there are multiple offences against the same victim, one order for compensation can be made and attached to the most serious of those offences. The duty to give reasons also applies where compensation is awarded in respect of some offences but not all.
4. Where the personal injury, loss or damage arises from a road accident, a compensation order may be made only if there is a conviction for an offence under the Theft Act 1968, or the offender is uninsured and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau will not cover the loss (Sentencing Code s. 136). Compensation can include loss of all or part of a victim’s no claims bonus.
Considerations
5. Subject to consideration of the victim’s views (see paragraph 7 below), the court must order compensation wherever possible and should not have regard to the availability of other sources such as civil litigation or the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Any amount paid by an offender under a compensation order will generally be deducted from a subsequent civil award or payment under the Scheme to avoid double compensation. Victims who suffer minor injuries will usually not be eligible to claim under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. It is therefore of greater importance that appropriate applications for compensation are made during criminal sentencing exercises. A guide to suggested amounts for specific injuries commonly seen in magistrates’ courts is provided below.
6. Compensation may be ordered for such amount as the court considers appropriate having regard to any evidence and any representations made by the offender or prosecutor. The court must also take into account the offender’s means (see also paragraphs 10 -12 below).
7. Compensation should benefit, not inflict further harm on, the victim. Any financial recompense from the offender may cause distress. A victim may or may not want compensation from the offender and assumptions should not be made either way. The victim’s views are properly obtained through sensitive discussion by the police or witness care unit, when it can be explained that the offender’s ability to pay will ultimately determine whether, and how much, compensation is ordered and whether the compensation will be paid in one lump sum or by instalments. If the victim does not want compensation, this should be made known to the court and respected.
8. In cases where it is difficult to ascertain the full amount of the loss suffered by the victim, consideration should be given to making a compensation order for an amount representing the agreed or likely loss. Where relevant information is not immediately available, it may be appropriate to grant an adjournment if it would enable it to be obtained. However, compensation orders are for straightforward cases and a court should not embark on a detailed inquiry as to the extent of any injury, loss or damage – that is better left to civil proceedings, but the making of a compensation order does not preclude a victim from making a civil claim at a later date, subject to the Limitation Act 1980.
9. The court should consider two types of loss:
financial loss sustained as a result of the offence such as the cost of repairing damage or, in case of injury, any loss of earnings or medical expenses;
pain and suffering caused (whether physical or psychological) and any interference with day to day activities. This should be assessed in light of all factors that appear to the court to be relevant, including any medical evidence, the victim’s age and personal circumstances.
10. Once the court has formed a preliminary view of the appropriate level of compensation, it must have regard to the means of the offender so far as they are known. Where the offender has little money, the order may have to be scaled down or additional time allowed to pay; the court may allow compensation to be paid over a period of up to three years in appropriate cases.
Combining compensation with a custodial sentence
11. The fact that a custodial sentence is imposed does not, in itself, make it inappropriate to order compensation; however, it may be relevant to whether the offender has the means to satisfy the order. Magistrates should consult their legal adviser in any case where they are considering combining compensation with a custodial sentence.
Effect on other financial orders
12. Where the court considers that it would be appropriate to impose a fine and a compensation order but the offender has insufficient means to pay both, priority should be given to compensation. Compensation also takes priority over the surcharge where the offender’s means are an issue.
Collection order
13. The court must make an order (“a collection order”) relating to the payment of the sum due, unless it appears to the court that it is impracticable or inappropriate to make the order.
The collection order must state:
(a) the amount of the sum due, including the amount of any fine, compensation order or other sum
(b) whether the court considers the offender to be an existing defaulter and if so whether the existing default (or defaults) can be disregarded
(c) whether the court has made an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions
(d) if the court has not made an attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions, the payment terms
(e) if an attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions has been made, the reserve terms (in other words, the payment terms that will apply if the AEO or ABD fails). It will often be appropriate to set a reserve term of payment in full within 14 days.
14. Failure to pay a compensation order is a criminal matter and carries a penal sanction.
Crown Court only
15. No sentence in default can be imposed unless the compensation order is for £20,000 or more, in which case it is enforceable as a fine of such an amount.
On sentence for any offence, a court may make a restraining order in addition to dealing with the offender for the offence.
Nature of the order
A restraining order may be made for the purpose of protecting the victim(s) of the offence (or any other person mentioned in the order) from future conduct by the offender which amounts to harassment or will cause a fear of violence.
The order prohibits the offender from doing anything described in the order.
“Conduct” includes speech, and “harassment” includes alarming the person or causing them distress.
Notice
The general rule is that the offender must be given an opportunity to consider:
what order is proposed and why, and
any evidence in support of the application
(see Criminal Procedure Rules 31.2 and 31.3 for further details)
Deciding whether to make a restraining order on conviction
The court must be satisfied that making the order is necessary for the purpose of protecting the person(s) from the relevant conduct. This requires an evidence-based conclusion to be reached that it is at least likely that the offender will engage in such conduct in the future.
The order cannot be made merely to assuage the consequences of past conduct. However, this does not mean that that the consequences for the person to be protected of the past conduct, and the likely consequences of any future conduct, are irrelevant. The degree of harassment involved in the past conduct and/or the level of fear and distress it has caused are relevant when determining whether to make a restraining order and the terms of any order.
Further evidence (in addition to that which relates to the offence of which the offender has been convicted ) may be led by the prosecution and/or the offender, provided that it would be admissible in civil proceedings for an injunction under s.3 of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 (Sentencing Act 2020, s.362). Hearsay evidence may be received.
Taking into account the views of the person(s) to be protected
In normal circumstances before an application for restraining order is considered by the court, sufficient enquiries should be made to obtain the views of the person to be protected as to whether they wish the order to be made and if so as to its terms.
These views should be taken into account by the court when deciding whether to make the order (and if so its terms).
There is no requirement for the court to receive direct evidence of the views of the person to be protected. In appropriate cases, the court may be able to draw a proper inference as to the views of the person.
There may be cases where the order will be appropriate even though the person to be protected does not seek it. However, such an order may be impractical if the person to be protected does not want the order to be made because they want to have contact with the offender (see also Offences in a domestic context below).
Content of a restraining order
General considerations
A restraining order may only include prohibitions. There is no power to include requirements or to make any prohibition subject to electronic monitoring.
The prohibitions in the order must be:
necessary to protect the person(s) to be protected from future conduct which either amounts to harassment of that person or will cause them to fear violence
proportionate to that purpose, and
clear and precise so that there is no doubt what the offender is prohibited from doing
A restraining order must not conflict with an order of the family court or make such an order unworkable or impractical
Identifying the person(s) to be protected
Generally, a restraining order should name the person (or a defined group of people) to be protected. The order cannot be made for the protection of the world at large or for excessively wide groups of people (such as “any child under 16”). The person to be protected can be a corporate body or the unnamed employees of a corporate body.
Offences in a domestic context
Where the making of a restraining order might interfere with otherwise appropriate contact between a parent and a child, sufficient enquiries should be made about the practicalities of the order and particular care should be taken to ensure that the order does not make it impossible for contact to take place.
In cases where the court has determined that it is necessary to make a restraining order despite a view expressed by an adult person to be protected that they do not wish the order to be made, the prohibitions in the order cannot operate to prevent the relationship between the person to be protected and the offender from continuing (including by living together). Persons at a serious risk of harm from an offender have the right to continue a relationship with that person and to live with them if they choose.
In this situation, the restraining order may include terms which prohibit conduct such as:
molesting the person to be protected
going to a particular place away from the home (in order for the person to be protected to have a safe space to go should they wish to be away from the offender)
contacting the person to be protected for a specified period (e.g. 14 days) if the person to be protected has asked for a break
Geographical exclusion
A restraining order should not prohibit the offender from going to a place such as the home or workplace of the person to be protected without specifying the address in the order or any other circumstances in which the offender might become aware of a new address
A geographical exclusion can be for a wider area than a particular address (or road where that address is located) if it is necessary in the particular circumstances of the case. Exclusion from a town might be necessary, even if the offender had lived there before being sent to custody for the offence
The term of the order prohibiting entry into a geographical area must be clearly expressed and accompanied either by a map or by a clear written description of the prohibited area.
Commencement of order
A restraining order can start on the day on which it is made or any subsequent day. The date of its commencement must be specified clearly in the order to avoid uncertainty and difficulties of enforcement.
Where an offender has been sentenced to custody for the offence, a restraining order should start from the date of sentence and not from the date of release of the offender from custody.
Length of order
The order may have effect for a specified period or until further order.
The court should make the order for no longer than is necessary for the purpose of protecting the protected person(s) from future conduct by the offender which either amounts to harassment of the protected person(s) or will cause them to fear violence.
Effect of the order
It is an offence for the offender, without reasonable excuse, to do anything that they are prohibited from doing by a restraining order.
Consequences of breach
Breach of a restraining order is a criminal offence, maximum penalty five years’ custody.
Step 10 – Consideration for time spent on bail (tagged curfew)
The court must consider whether to give credit for time spent on bail in accordance with section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and section 325 of the Sentencing Code.
Give feedback about this page
Please tell us if there is an issue with this guideline to do with the accuracy of the content, how easy the guideline is to understand and apply, or accessibility/broken links.